Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 May 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 11 May 13 >

Contents

[edit] May 12

[edit] Image:Jimmy skinner.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Wizardman 22:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User cannot possibly own the copyright for such a historical image. Skinner coached after the 60's so {{PD-old}} would not apply. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ( talk / contribs) 00:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if it is a personal handout photo, that means it was published without a copyright notice, thus making it public domain in the U.S. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
How so? An image does not enter public domain unless the copyright owner explicitly releases the image copyright. You don't lose copyright simply because you give photographs away - that's absurd. I don't see any evidence that this has happened. --Mosmof (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No, no... that's completely not what I'm saying. I'm saying that as a "handout photo" this image was published. Given that it was published in the U.S. before 1978 without a copyright notice. This makes it in the public domain. see the my change to the copyright tag on this. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected - I didn't know about the 1923-1977 rule on images without copyright notice. Now, my devil's advocate question - are we reasonably certain that this image wasn't published before his funeral, i.e. the handout didn't use a previously published news photo, say? --Mosmof (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Skinner was my grandfather. This was a personal photo taken by a portrait studio that he handed out to fans. It has not been published as a news photo or otherwise. --Owolter (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:Vodou dancer4.jpg

Original version of image carried a copyright tag for mamiwata.com. The current version has been photoshopped to remove the copyright tag. The mamiwata.com Web site indicates, " ©2006 Mama Zogbé . All Rights Reserved." To me, this tells me that this is likely a copyright violation of mamiwata.com, and not released as GFDL or CC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rickross.gif

This looks to be taken from a website. Did the uploader snap the picture himself? — Spellcast (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Image:LeBronWitness.JPG

While I don't doubt that the uploader is the photographer and copyright owner, the intent of the image is to show a billboard, a copyrighted work, and therefore this image would be copyrighted as a derivative work. Mosmof (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, and from what I know about copyrights and copyrighted material, this photograph was taken by the poster in a public area, photographing material which was posted with the intention of being seen publicly, and therefore free. The actual image, media, and logos are copyrighted, however, there would be no legal stance against posting a photograph of a publicly displayed image in a public venue (wikipedia) where no money, publicity, or gain what-so-ever is being made by the poster. I would see it as identical to taking a picture of Times Square. One wouldn't be forced to remove the picture because there's a billboard in the picture unless the reproduced image was creating revenue, which, in this case, it's not. AudioStatic82 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things - whether there's commercial loss or gain doesn't affect an image's copyright status (though it would affect the copyright holder's willingness to take legal action). The difference with the Times Square example is the focus of the photograph - the intent of the photo would be to show the location and the array of billboards, and whatever logos and other intellectual property that appear in the photograph would be incidental. Here, the billboard and its contents are the focus of the ad, and everything else is incidental. It wouldn't be unlike taking a picture of a magazine spread that showed the same ad. --Mosmof (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RogueStatusGunShowShirt.JPG

Derivative work. The intent of this image is to show the t-shirt design, a copyrighted work. Mosmof (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rumsfeld letter to Clinton re Pollard.jpg

This letter was written by Donald Rumsfeld and therefore he is the copyright owner. The fact that the uploader has a copy of the letter does not mean they have the right to license it under the GFDL. Hut 8.5 18:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay, I will admit that I'm a little fuzzy on GFDL rules and so maybe that's not the best rationale for this image. However, I have no doubt that using this image in this context qualifies as fair use. Title 17 §107 permits the use of a protected work without the right-holder’s permission if the use is for a purpose “such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research….” Factors considered in determining whether something is fair use include 1. the purpose and character of the use 2. the nature of the copyrighted work 3. the effect the use has on the work’s value. In this case, there is no underlying value to the work, the work was intentionally placed by the author into the public sphere by virtue of the fact that every Tom Dick and Harry who made an effort to release Pollard got a copy of this letter. The purpose of the use here is to publicize information as to the author's position on the issue, not to copy the substance of the letter. In fact, there is very little substance to the letter at all. It just stakes out a position and ends. This is a classic example of fair use in the sense that it is being used as a means to convey the news, as the former Secretary of Defense's position on this issue is very much newsworthy, not to plagiarize the content of the letter itself, which, as a creative work, is meaningless. So, if you want me to change the rationale to fair use, I guess I can do that, but use of this image is NOT a copyright violation. Sh76us (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to justify the image as fair use, then you need to rewrite the image description page to comply with Wikipedia:Non-free content (and remove the GFDL tag because the image is not licensed under the GFDL). Looking through your contributions I can see two more images that have the same problem: Image:RGNixonletter.jpg and Image:Ford letter.JPG, so you will need to fix them as well. Hut 8.5 14:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I changed the copyright rationale. Unless you have another objection, I'd like to remove the possibly unfree image tag from the image. Sh76us (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather you followed the process for this page and leave it up for 14 days so other users can comment. You rationale doesn't look good enough - you need to specify a reason for each page it's used on. (Wikipedia can be paranoid about fair use.) Hut 8.5 08:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is about whether to delete the image because it doesn't qualify as fair use. What does that have to do with which page it's on or how many pages it's on? My rationale applies equally for each page it's on. Also, you say that my "rationale doesn't look good enough" but you don't back that up with anything. If you don't think my rationale is good enough, I would appreciate your being more specific about why. I happen to think my rationale is fine and, as you know, I have every bit as much right to make decisions on behalf of Wikipedia as do you. I guess there's no harm in leaving it up for the 14 days though, of which 7 have passed. Sh76us (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
When I say your rationale isn't good enough I mean that it doesn't comply with the relevant guideline (which represents the consensus view of the community). Specifically you need a description of why the image is being used on each article with a rationale tailored to that article (read the examples on that link). This isn't actually relevant to my original concern but I'm trying to stop the image getting deleted through another process. Hut 8.5 19:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll work on a rationale for the pages that I posted the image to. I'll do the same for the other letters you mentioned above. Thank you for the guidance. Sh76us (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Series of images uploaded by Hmn-league (talk · contribs)

These are all credited to "Mirza Causevic", the uploader self-identify as "Nidia" so aparently not self created works. Did a few searches and it seems like most if not all of these images are from a Flickr user known as mizi. All of his images that I have checked are tagged as "all rights reserved" there, so these all appear to be copyvios unless there is some undocumented release floating around somewhere.

  • Image:Straylight Bench by miziphoto.jpg
  • Image:Dee by miziphoto.jpg
  • Image:Harvard Footbridge by miziphoto.jpg
  • Image:Anna Three by miziphoto.jpg
  • Image:Winthrop by miziphoto.jpg
  • Image:Boston April 2006 by miziphoto.jpg
  • Image:Sarajevo Two by miziphoto.jpg
  • Image:Revere Beach Dawn 06 by miziphoto.jpg
  • Image:Retina by mizi.jpg
  • Image:Sabina-by-mizi.jpg
  • Image:Stimulate by mizi.jpg
  • Image:Son Of Rage and Love by mizi.jpg
  • Image:Let There Be Light by mizi.jpg
  • Image:Dee by mizi.jpg
  • Image:The Spice Extends Life by mizi.jpg

--Sherool (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)